No, but it is a rather clever idea for the very long term: people won't get sick in the first place, so they won't need to see a doctor.

And, yes, there will be less of a need for doctors!

Which has got to be part of the plan to fix expenditure on health, as, with uni fees going up, fewer students can afford to study to become doctors.

Expect cures for everything from the common cold to cancer, from measles to AIDS, even for our growing resistance to antibiotics.

But, you say, this research is likely to take decades and may not produce any results?

And will we find a cure for broken bones?

Maybe only rich sportspeople will go to doctors - after all, the $7 co-payment is but a drop in the bucket for the likes of Buddy Franklin.

And, you ask, why do we need to do this as other countries already have research institutes?

Well, of course they do. The US has lots of them - I'm thinking for example of the not insignificant Johns Hopkins and Harvard among many others - and I'm sure they're already hard at work finding cures for cancer and all the other ailments.

But, you point out, they still haven't come up with cures with all the money and genius at their disposal, so what chance do we have with our minute population and even smaller number of researchers?

I mean, it's been pointed out ad nauseam by the people who are introducing this intriguing regime that we can't influence global warming by cutting emissions because our population numbers are so tiny.

So what chance is there of our resolute, but outgunned, researchers coming up with the antibiotic to kill golden staph?

And, even if they succeed, what will the outcome be?

We'll all live longer and have to pay even more to see those decreasing numbers of GPs for ailments our researchers haven't found cures for.

That's if they haven't died already because they couldn't afford to see a GP before the cures had been found.

And if they die, well, they won't need doctors.

Absolutely brilliant.

How about trying for different ways to repair the budget emergency?

Such as not spending $89 million on looking for a missing Malaysian plane that's really not our problem.

Or perhaps trying to tax multinationals - such as Google and Apple - that contribute zilch while earning billions here?

Do you think that Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey must know what they're doing, as they're prepared to wear the political pain?

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

The author is a Fairfax Media journalist.

41 comments so far

Tony Abbott could save $245 million he intends to squander on school chaplains for public primary schools. This vaguely defined medical research fund is simply a justification for why people will be unable to access doctors, pay for prescriptions & pathology tests etc.

Commenter

Clare

Date and time

May 30, 2014, 1:48PM

Yes, it is strange that this govt, who is apparently so keen on privatisation in general, wants to publicly fund and duplicate research already being done by privately funded foundations. The whole idea is a weird facade to justify its user pays policy, and is weirdly inconsistent with the faux 'budget emergency.'

Commenter

Mardi

Location

Tuggeranong

Date and time

May 31, 2014, 3:17PM

And what about the off-shore tax havens, the trusts that dodge tax, the corporations that pay less tax than we do, capital gains concessions, negative gearing??? Why target pensioners, students, sick people? Well, it's because we have a deficit disaster. Who else would you target? Not the rich - you voted for the Libs - you asked for it.

Commenter

Rod

Date and time

June 02, 2014, 6:10PM

It is wasted effort trying to untangle any logic from the budget. It is just a hodgepodge of ideological truisms that have been cobbled together without coherence or common sense. understand their ideology and all the rest falls into place. It is about socialism for the rich and raw, unadulterated capitalism for the poor. It is a winner take all ideology, wait for it--I know you won't believe this, based on a set of books writing fifty years ago by a crazy called Ayn Rand. Most of its proponents are bastard children of her fantasising.

Commenter

Lesm

Location

Balmain

Date and time

May 30, 2014, 1:54PM

Lesm, Rand was a B grade script writer which explains her appeal to the types who like their ideology simplistic to the point of pathologically cretinous. Not unlike the B grade science fiction writer who founded his own cult now popular with some Hollywood A listers. Rand despite her rugged rhetoric, lived out her last days on welfare. Were she alive today she would be one of the Abbott governemnt's targets.

Commenter

davros

Date and time

June 02, 2014, 1:00PM

if this co payment was meant to plug a gap in Medicare then the money would be going back into Medicare not some undefined future nebulous feel good 'research' fund that is going to take seven or eleven years of co payments to set up. Maybe by then the first thing they will be researching is how to make Soylent Green so the rich can dine on the poor without any bleating about namby pamby lefty socialist claptrap like fairness or community or society or what not ...

Commenter

juileep

Location

sydney

Date and time

May 30, 2014, 2:04PM

Exactly! Dutton argues that universal health care is unsustainable but the fee is going into medical research. as if!!! I predict that, if it goes ahead, the money ends up in consolidated revenue to fix the so-called budget emergency that doesn't really exist!In addition, as one commentator said, where are all these researchers coming from? 457 visa increases because there is not the broad base in medical research now in Australia? The lead time to get to that level is many years but of course our government also seems to have no idea about how the education system really works either!Crazy nonsense from incompetent political performers all round!

Commenter

grumpy old lady

Date and time

May 30, 2014, 3:29PM

The problem is they have created a climate of Distrust

Commenter

Abel Adamski

Date and time

May 31, 2014, 10:52AM

Funny thing about it going to research. What was it I was reading about Abbott getting treatment for Melanoma? I would not wish Melanoma on anyone, even Abbott, but just seems a bit of a coincidence we have this money going into Medical Research. I hope they find a cure for the terminal Immune Disease I have, but I still don't think the $7 fee is justified and $5 going to purely medical research at the expense of other areas of research where funding has been removed.

Commenter

Greg

Date and time

May 30, 2014, 5:00PM

Perhaps if they hadn't blocked the mining tax when in opposition, resulting in much watering down and little revenue raised, the budget would have been in a better position. But of course, that would have been hurting their mates. Disgusting!